Personal benchmark paragraph — first draft

GPT-5.6Codex CLIhigh effortrun 21 Sep 2026120,309 tokens

Instructions ▾

Instructions — what the model was asked

okay now we need the "what is a personal benchmark" graf

ANSWER.mdthe model's output · 405 Bytesdownload

A personal benchmark is a reference check for AI. Instead of testing models on generic questions, it tests them on work you’ve actually done and scores them against checks drawn from your own judgment and corrections. Over time, it becomes a living record of what “good” means to you—one that can tell you which model is best for each kind of work, and when a new one can do it better or cheaper.

Checks

2/8 checks passed

6 failed

fail

D01. First sentence answers the questionthis case

Judge's reasoning

The ANSWER.md paragraph opens with "A personal benchmark is a reference check for AI." This analogy has to be decoded and does not say what the reader gets from a personal benchmark.

Rubric

D01. Does the first sentence answer what a personal benchmark is in plain, accurate terms? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “Does it answer the question accurately in a way I understand?” PASS if: The first sentence tells a new reader what a personal benchmark does for their own work or their choice of AI model. Simple language such as measuring how well an AI works for you can pass, even if a sharper sentence would say it helps identify the best model for your work. FAIL if: The first sentence only sets up a generic benchmark, offers an analogy that needs decoding, or restates 'personal' and 'benchmark' without saying what the person gets from it. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

fail

D02. Explain the terms the reader needsthis case

Judge's reasoning

The paragraph says models are scored "against checks drawn from your own judgment and corrections" but never explains what a "check" is.

Rubric

D02. Can a new reader understand the terms and references needed to follow the paragraph when they appear? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “we haven't defined what checks are. So I'm lost.” PASS if: An unfamiliar term essential to the explanation is made understandable at first use, either by ordinary wording or an immediate explanation or example. Normal reader knowledge and context already established in the surrounding document count. FAIL if: The paragraph relies on an unexplained term or reference whose meaning the reader must reconstruct from the model's notes or unstated context. This extends the check beyond ‘checks’ to concepts such as ‘cases.’ It does not require a glossary, explaining familiar words, or repeating material already introduced. Do not fail an ordinary use of the verb ‘check’ when its object is clear. Assess an analogy's explanatory value separately under D04. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

fail

D03. Each sentence follows the previous onethis case

Judge's reasoning

The opening "reference check" framing is dropped: the next sentence switches to "tests them on work you've actually done" without linking the two, so the reader has to supply the missing connection.

Rubric

D03. Does the paragraph develop its explanation in a coherent sequence, without missing connections between ideas? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “Each sentence of this paragraph needs to connect from one to the next, and that breaks the connection.” PASS if: Each sentence builds on an established idea or makes its change of direction understandable. The explanation supplies the connections a reader needs before relying on them. FAIL if: A sentence abruptly changes subjects, leaves a necessary explanation unfinished, or skips a step in the reasoning so the reader must invent the missing connection. Judge continuity throughout the paragraph, allowing ordinary reader knowledge and established document context. No particular topic order or transition words are required; an implicit connection is enough when clear. A change of topic, contrast, or analogy can pass when its relationship to the preceding idea is understandable. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

fail

D04. Analogy clicks without algebrathis case

Judge's reasoning

It leads with the compressed line "a reference check for AI" and never says what corresponds to what, which is the failure pattern the rubric names.

Rubric

D04. If the paragraph uses an analogy, does it clarify the concept immediately? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “I have to do a lot of algebra to understand it.” PASS if: There is no analogy, or the comparison promptly maps ordinary benchmarks and personal benchmarks to familiar things and helps the reader understand the distinction. It does not require reconstructing the relationship for oneself. FAIL if: It leads with a compressed line such as 'a reference check, not an SAT score' before the reader knows what corresponds to what, or delays the mapping so the analogy is forgotten before it is explained. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

fail

D05. Make personal standards concretethis case

Judge's reasoning

It mentions "your own judgment and corrections" and "what 'good' means to you" but gives no example of an actual standard, such as a headline being interesting or following AP style.

Rubric

D05. Does the paragraph make a person's own standard concrete? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “The thing that's good about this is it is concrete. It gives concrete examples, which is really, really important for this.” PASS if: It gives at least one understandable example of a standard the person could set for their work, such as whether a headline is interesting or follows AP style, and makes clear that models can be compared against those standards. Other good standards count; Dan's examples are illustrative, not required wording. FAIL if: It merely lists tasks, corrections, taste, or judgment without showing what one actual standard would ask, or gives a detail that does not help the reader see how a person's standard applies across models. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

fail

D07. Tests performance on your workthis case

Judge's reasoning

It presents a personal benchmark as "a reference check for AI," which endorses the secondhand-report framing that Dan rejected in favor of a work trial, even though the paragraph also mentions testing on your work.

Rubric

D07. Does the paragraph frame a personal benchmark as a direct trial of a model on your work? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “personal benchmarks are more like a work trial than a reference check.” PASS if: It explains trying models on tasks representative of your work and judging their performance against your standards. A work trial, audition, test assignment, or accurate literal explanation can convey this; the phrase 'work trial' is not required. FAIL if: It endorses a reference check or other secondhand report of performance as the explanation of personal benchmarks, even if it also mentions tasks and checks, or never makes clear that the model's own performance on your work is tested. Explicitly rejecting the reference-check analogy is not a failure. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

2 passed

pass

ai-wordingevery task

deliverable text contains none of the shared AI-tell phrases in bench/ai-tells.txt. Task checks may add narrower contractual bans, but must not repeat this shared floor.

inspected rick-every-checks-demo-transcript.md, strategy-reading-notes.md, earlier-benchmark-phrasing-chat.json, notion-editorial-review-before-paragraph.md, ANSWER.md, notion-strategy-draft.md

pass

D06. Claims fit the supplied contextthis case

Judge's reasoning

Testing models on your real work, drawing checks from your corrections, and showing which model is best all match the draft's KateBench description ("built from your real work and corrections… should show you the best model for you"), and nothing contradicts the source.

Rubric

D06. Do the paragraph's claims about how the product works fit the supplied context? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Use the supplied task source material to assess the paragraph's claims. PASS if: Product claims and promises are supported by the source material, with proposed capabilities presented as intentions where that distinction matters. Clearly illustrative examples are allowed. FAIL if: The explanation depends on an invented or contradicted capability, or presents an aspiration as an established current capability. This assesses support, not whether the prose sounds exciting or cautious. Do not demand qualifications that do not change the claim's meaning. An aspiration about one-click capture, for example, should not become a factual claim that the product already captures every correction automatically. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence identifying the relevant claim and its support or conflict in the supplied material. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.

judged by Claude